Leopold Wetland Management District Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Leopold
Wetland Management District
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions;
set forth goals, objectives and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and,
identify the Fish and Wildlife Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations
and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization
purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and
maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network
of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration
of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the
benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve,
protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people.
Cover Photograph: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Leopold
Wetland Management District
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval
Submitted by:
~T~
District Manager
Concur:
fJ1. ~
Date
1· z.~. 2()1)?
Nita M. Fuller Date
Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System
Charles M. Wooley
Acting Regional Director
Leopold
Wetland Management District
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
i
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ..................................................................................................................1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................1
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................................1
The National Wildlife Refuge System ........................................................................................................................1
District Purposes ........................................................................................................................................................3
District Vision .............................................................................................................................................................3
Purpose and Need for Plan ........................................................................................................................................3
History and Establishment .........................................................................................................................................4
Legal Context .............................................................................................................................................................4
Chapter 2: The Planning Process ...............................................................................................................................5
Meetings and Involvement .......................................................................................................................................5
Publication of Draft CCP .............................................................................................................................................5
Issues ........................................................................................................................................................................6
Habitat Management .........................................................................................................................................6
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation .........................................................................................................................7
Land Acquisition .................................................................................................................................................7
Visitor Services ...................................................................................................................................................8
Service Identity ...................................................................................................................................................8
Wilderness Review .............................................................................................................................................9
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management ........................................................................................10
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................10
Wetland Management District ..........................................................................................................................10
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ................................................................................................................................10
Historic Vegetation ...........................................................................................................................................10
Land Use/Cover ................................................................................................................................................10
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ............................................................................................................12
Wildlife Species of Management Concern .......................................................................................................13
Other Conservation and Recreation Lands in the Area .....................................................................................15
Wisconsin Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need .......................................................17
Socioeconomic Setting ...........................................................................................................................................17
Potential District Visitors ..................................................................................................................................17
Climate and Climate Change Impacts ......................................................................................................................21
Observed Climate Trends .................................................................................................................................22
Scenarios of Future Climate ..............................................................................................................................22
Midwest Key Issues .........................................................................................................................................22
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
ii
Reduction in Lake and River Levels ...................................................................................................................22
Agricultural Shifts .............................................................................................................................................23
Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems ...........................................................................................23
Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................................................24
Water and Hydrology ...............................................................................................................................................24
District Resources ....................................................................................................................................................25
Wetlands ..........................................................................................................................................................25
Plant Communities ............................................................................................................................................28
Plant Communities Associated With Wetlands ...............................................................................................28
Plant Communities Associated With Uplands ..................................................................................................28
Fish and Wildlife Communities .........................................................................................................................30
Birds ..................................................................................................................................................................30
Mammals ..........................................................................................................................................................32
Amphibians and Reptiles ..................................................................................................................................32
Invertebrates .....................................................................................................................................................32
Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................................................32
Threats to Resources ..............................................................................................................................................32
Invasive Species ...............................................................................................................................................32
Drainage and Pesticides ...................................................................................................................................34
Rural Development ...........................................................................................................................................35
Administrative Facilities .........................................................................................................................................35
Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation ..........................................................................................................35
Museums and Repositories ...............................................................................................................................37
Visitor Services ........................................................................................................................................................37
Other District Uses ...................................................................................................................................................37
Current Management ...............................................................................................................................................38
Habitat Management .......................................................................................................................................38
Wetland Management .....................................................................................................................................38
Grasslands ........................................................................................................................................................38
Forests ..............................................................................................................................................................38
Cropland ............................................................................................................................................................38
Management of Resident Species ....................................................................................................................39
Habitat Management: Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ........................................................................39
Land Acquisition ..............................................................................................................................................39
Monitoring and Studies ....................................................................................................................................40
Waterfowl Surveys ...........................................................................................................................................40
Non-Game Bird Studies ....................................................................................................................................43
Wetland/Water Quality Studies ........................................................................................................................44
Threatened and Endangered Species Monitoring .............................................................................................44
Prescribed Fire Monitoring ...............................................................................................................................44
Visitor Services .................................................................................................................................................44
Hunting .............................................................................................................................................................44
Fishing ...............................................................................................................................................................45
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iii
Interpretation, Wildlife Observation, and Photography ....................................................................................45
Environmental Education ..................................................................................................................................45
Non-wildlife-dependent Recreation. .................................................................................................................45
Pest Management ............................................................................................................................................45
Archaeological and Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................45
Farm Service Agency Conservation Easements ................................................................................................45
Existing Partnerships ................................................................................................................................................46
Chapter 4: Management Direction ............................................................................................................................67
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................67
Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................................................67
Goal 1: Habitat ..........................................................................................................................................67
Goal 2: Wildlife .........................................................................................................................................72
Goal 3: People ...........................................................................................................................................74
Goal 4: Land and Visitor Protection ............................................................................................................79
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ...............................................................................................................................82
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................82
New and Existing Projects ......................................................................................................................................82
Minimum Refuge Operations Needs .................................................................................................................82
Prairie Restoration on WPAs and Easements ...................................................................................................82
Savanna Restoration ........................................................................................................................................83
Wetland Restoration ........................................................................................................................................83
Enhance Biological Program (District Biologist & Biological Technician) .........................................................83
Enhance Visitor Services Program (Wildlife Refuge Specialist & Seasonal Tractor Operator) .......................83
Control of Invasive Species, Noxious Weeds and Woody Invaders .................................................................83
Replace Facilities (Headquarters and Maintenance Facilities) .........................................................................84
Staffing ....................................................................................................................................................................84
Partnership Opportunities ........................................................................................................................................84
Step-Down Management Plans ...............................................................................................................................86
Monitoring and Evaluation .......................................................................................................................................86
Plan Review and Revision ........................................................................................................................................86
Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact .......................................................................................................87
Appendix B: Glossary .................................................................................................................................................91
Appendix C: Species Lists .........................................................................................................................................97
Appendix D: Regional Conservation Priority Species ........................................................................................121
Appendix E: Compliance Requirements ................................................................................................................139
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations ...........................................................................................................147
Appendix G: Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................................149
Appendix H: Refuge Operating Needs System and Maintenance Management System .............................153
Appendix I: List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................................157
Appendix J: Response to Comments Received on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan ..............161
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iv
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Location of Leopold Wetland Management District .......................................................................................2
Figure 2: Presettlement Landcover, Leopold Wetland Management District ...............................................................11
Figure 3: Current Landcover, Leopold Wetland Management District ..........................................................................14
Figure 4: Bird Conservation Region, Leopold Wetland Management District ..............................................................15
Figure 5: Conservation Lands Adjacent to the Leopold Wetland Management District ...............................................16
Figure 6: Wisconsin Ecological Landscapes ..................................................................................................................18
Figure 7: Ice Age Deposits of Wisconsin .......................................................................................................................25
Figure 8: Wisconsin Groundwater Contamination Susceptitiblity Model .....................................................................26
Figure 9: Focus Areas, Leopold Wetland Management District ....................................................................................41
Figure 10: Conservation Easements Managed by Leopold Wetland Management District ...........................................47
Figure 11: Index to Leopold WMD County Maps .............................................................................................................48
Figure 12: Adams County, Leopold Wetland Management District ................................................................................49
Figure 13: Waushara County, Leopold Wetland Management District ..........................................................................50
Figure 14: Winnebago County, Leopold Wetland Management District ........................................................................51
Figure 15: Calumet County, Leopold Wetland Management District ..............................................................................52
Figure 16: Manitowoc County, Leopold Wetland Management District .........................................................................53
Figure 17: Marquette and Green Lake Counties, Leopold Wetland Management District .............................................54
Figure 18: Fond du Lac County, Leopold Wetland Management District .......................................................................55
Figure 19: Sheboygan County, Leopold Wetland Management District .........................................................................56
Figure 20: Sauk County, Leopold Wetland Management District ..................................................................................57
Figure 21: Columbia County, Leopold Wetland Management District ............................................................................58
Figure 22: Dodge County, Leopold Wetland Management District .................................................................................59
Figure 23: Washington and Ozaukee Counties, Leopold Wetland Management District ...............................................60
Figure 24: Dane County, Leopold Wetland Management District ...................................................................................61
Figure 25: Jefferson County, Leopold Wetland Management District ............................................................................62
Figure 26: Waukesha County, Leopold Wetland Management District ..........................................................................63
Figure 27: Rock County, Leopold Wetland Management District ...................................................................................64
Figure 28: Walworth County, Leopold Wetland Management District ...........................................................................65
Figure 29: Racine and Kenosha Counties, Leopold Wetland Management District .......................................................66
Figure 30: Current Staff, Leopold Wetland Management District ..................................................................................85
Table 1: Land Cover in the Leopold Wetland Management District .............................................................................13
Table 2: Socioeconomic Data, Counties Within the Leopold Wetland Management District ......................................19
Table 3: Wisconsin Department of Administration Official Population Projections June 2003 ...................................20
Table 4: Wetland Acres by Type, Leopold Wetland Management District ...................................................................27
Table 5: Grassland Features, Leopold Wetland Management District .........................................................................29
Table 6: Most Common Bird Species, Leopold WMD ..................................................................................................31
Table 7: Mammal Species Likely to Occur on Leopold WMD .......................................................................................33
Table 8: Amphibian and Reptile Species Likely to Occur on Leopold WMD .................................................................33
Table 9: Current and Proposed Staffing Under the CCP ................................................................................................84
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Introduction
The Leopold Wetland Management District
(WMD), established in 1993, manages over 12,000
acres of Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs) in 17
southeastern Wisconsin counties, covering some of
the most important waterfowl areas of Wisconsin
(see Figure 1). The District also administers 45 con-servation
easements, totaling 3,000 acres in 21 east-ern
Wisconsin counties. WPAs consist of wetland
habitat surrounded by grassland and woodland
communities. While WPAs are managed primarily
for ducks and geese, they also provide habitat for a
variety of other wildlife species such as non-game
grassland birds, shorebirds, wading birds, mink,
muskrat, wild turkey, and deer.
The Leopold Wetland Management District is
named after Aldo Leopold, who is widely acknowl-edged
as the father of wildlife conservation in Amer-ica.
In tribute to his philosophy, the Leopold
Wetland Management District is dedicated to pre-serving,
restoring, and enhancing wildlife habitat in
Wisconsin for the benefit of present and future gen-erations.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
The Leopold WMD is administered by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The Service is
the primary federal agency responsible for conserv-ing,
protecting, and enhancing the nation’s fish and
wildlife populations and their habitats. It oversees
the enforcement of federal wildlife laws, manage-ment
and protection of migratory bird populations,
restoration of nationally significant fisheries, admin-istration
of the Endangered Species Act, and the
restoration of wildlife habitat such as wetlands. The
Service also manages the National Wildlife Refuge
System.
The National Wildlife Refuge
System
District lands are part of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, which was founded in 1903 when
President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican
Island in Florida as a sanctuary for Brown Pelicans.
Today, the System is a network of about 545 refuges
and wetland management districts covering about
95 million acres of public lands and waters. Most of
these lands (82 percent) are in Alaska, with approxi-mately
16 million acres located in the lower 48 states
and several island territories.
Baraboo Wetland Management at Leopold Wetland
Management District. USFWS photo.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the
world’s largest collection of lands specifically man-aged
for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides habitat
for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish,
amphibians, reptiles, and insects. As a result of
international treaties for migratory bird conserva-tion
and other legislation, such as the Migratory
Figure 1: Location of Leopold Wetland
Management District
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
2
Bird Conservation Act of 1929, many refuges have
been established to protect migratory waterfowl
and their migratory flyways. The Horicon Refuge,
for example, serves a dual purpose both as a critical
nesting ground and as an important link in the Mis-sissippi
Flyway network of refuges that serve as
rest stops and feeding stations for migrating ducks
and geese.
Refuges also play a crucial role in preserving
endangered and threatened species. Among the
most notable is Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in
Texas, which provides winter habitat for the highly
endangered whooping crane. Likewise, the Florida
Panther Refuge protects one of the nation’s most
endangered predators. Refuges also provide unique
recreational and educational opportunities for peo-ple.
When human activities are compatible with
wildlife and habitat conservation, they are places
where people can enjoy wildlife-dependent recre-ation
such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
photography, environmental education, and environ-mental
interpretation. Many refuges have visitor
centers, wildlife trails, automobile tours, and envi-ronmental
education programs. Nationwide,
approximately 30 million people visited national
wildlife refuges in 2004.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improve-ment
Act of 1997 established several important
mandates aimed at making the management of
national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The prepa-ration
of Comprehensive Conservation Plans
(CCPs) is one of those mandates. The legislation
directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that
the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
and purposes of the individual refuges are carried
out. It also requires the Secretary to maintain the
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental
health of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Revised goals for the National Wildlife Refuge
System were adopted on July 26, 2006, and incorpo-rated
into Part 601, Chapter 1, of the Fish and Wild-life
Service Manual (601 FW 1). The goals are:
# Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and
plants and their habitats, including species
that are endangered or threatened with
becoming endangered.
# Develop and maintain a network of habitats
for migratory birds, anadromous and inter-jurisdictional
fish, and marine mammal pop-ulations
that is strategically distributed and
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
3
carefully managed to meet important life his-tory
needs of these species across their
ranges.
# Conserve those ecosystems, plant communi-ties,
wetlands of national or international sig-nificance,
and landscapes and seascapes that
are unique, rare, declining, or underrepre-sented
in existing protection efforts.
# Provide and enhance opportunities to partici-pate
in compatible wildlife-dependent recre-ation
(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation
and photography, and environmental educa-tion
and interpretation).
# Foster understanding and instill appreciation
of the diversity and interconnectedness of
fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
Blue dasher. USFWS photo.
District Purposes
The purposes for the District are based upon its
land acquisition authorities. Lands are acquired
under the authority of the Migratory Bird Hunting
and Conservation Stamp Act, and since 1958, under
Public Law 85-585 as “Waterfowl Production
Areas.” The purpose of lands acquired under the
Migratory Bird Hunting Conservation Stamp Act is
“...as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to “...all
the provisions of such act (the Migratory Bird Con-servation
Act of 1929,16 U.S.C. 715d) ...except the
inviolate sanctuary provisions...,” and “...for any
other management purpose, for migratory birds.”
District Vision
The planning team considered past vision state-ments
and emerging issues and drafted the follow-ing
vision statement as the desired future state of
the District:
Waterfowl and other migratory birds find Dis-trict
lands isles of refuge in a landscape of
increasing residential development. Native
plants and animals, amazing in their diversity,
flourish on District and private lands from the
efforts of many active partners. Neighbors and
visitors enjoy and value District land and work
to conserve the region’s natural heritage.
Purpose and Need for Plan
This CCP articulates the management direction
for the Leopold Wetland Management District for
the next 15 years. Through goals, objectives, and
strategies, this CCP describes how the District
intends to fulfill its purpose and contribute to the
overall mission of the National Wildlife Refuge Sys-tem.
Several legislative mandates within the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
of 1997 have guided the development of this plan.
These mandates include:
# Wildlife has first priority in the management
of refuges.
# Wildlife-dependent recreation activities,
namely hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, environmental educa-tion
and interpretation are priority public
uses of refuges. We will facilitate these activ-ities
when they do not interfere with our abil-ity
to fulfill the refuges’ purpose or the
mission of the Refuge System.
# Other uses of the Refuge will only be allowed
when determined appropriate and compati-ble
with Refuge purposes and mission of the
Refuge System.
The plan will guide the management of Leopold
WMD by:
# Providing a clear statement of direction for
the future management.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
4
# Making a strong connection between District
activities and conservation activities that
occur in the surrounding area.
# Providing neighbors, visitors, and the gen-eral
public with an understanding of the Ser-vice’s
land acquisition and management
actions in the District.
# Ensuring District actions and programs are
consistent with the mandates of the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
# Ensuring that District management consid-ers
federal, state, and county plans.
# Establishing long-term continuity in District
management.
# Providing a basis for the development of
budget requests on the Districtís opera-tional,
maintenance, and capital improve-ment
needs.
History and Establishment
The WMD has its roots in a 1974 interagency
agreement based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Director Lynn Greenwalt’s authorization for federal
purchase of land and waters in Wisconsin. These
lands would be managed by mutual agreement
between the Service and the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources (Wisconsin DNR) under a
signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
Management of the WPAs was accomplished
according to the MOU signed in 1974 and several
addenda after that. In general, Wisconsin Depart-ment
of Natural Resources personnel were respon-sible
for on-the-ground management activities, and
Service personnel were responsible for administra-tion.
Federal management authority was under the
guidelines of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act with the day-to-day activities
spelled out in the Wisconsin Wetland Management
Guidelines.
As WPA acreage increased, so did the time and
commitment of management personnel. A Wiscon-sin
DNR “Workload Analysis” in the late 1980’s doc-umented
a staff shortage for management activities
on the WPAs. The Wisconsin DNR Director of the
Bureau of Wildlife Management and the Service’s
Regional Director began meeting in early 1990 to
discuss transferring management of the WPAs to
the Service. The date selected for the transfer was
September 30, 1995.
The transition date was later moved forward
when the Service received funding for District Man-agers
and summer temporaries to work with the
Wisconsin DNR in the summer and fall of 1992. The
final transition and establishment of the St. Croix
and the Leopold WMDs took place July 1, 1993.
The advent of the Service’s Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program and conservation easement
responsibilities in the late 1980s further defined the
WMD’s role. Private land habitat restoration proj-ects,
and protection and management of wetlands,
flood plains, and other important habitats on conser-vation
easements added greatly to the workload and
habitat diversity of the District.
Legal Context
In addition to the acquisition authorities of the
District, and the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, several federal laws,
executive orders, and regulations govern its admin-istration.
Appendix E contains a partial list of the
legal mandates that guided the preparation of this
plan and those that pertain to District management.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
5
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Meetings and Involvement
The planning process for this CCP began in July
2006. The Wisconsin Wetland Management Dis-tricts,
which include Leopold WMD and St. Croix
WMD, shared a planning process that included sim-ilar
timelines and key meetings held jointly. The
planning was conducted jointly because the Dis-tricts
face the same issues, and it makes sense to
address the issues consistently and share knowl-edge
and experience between Districts.
Initially, members of the regional planning staff
and District staff identified a list of issues and con-cerns
that were associated with the management of
the Districts. These preliminary issues and con-cerns
were based on staff knowledge of the area and
contacts with citizens in the community.
District staff and Service planners then asked
District neighbors, organizations, local government
units, and interested citizens to share their thoughts
at open houses and through written comments. In
September 2006, three open houses were held in
New Richmond, Portage, and Waukau, Wisconsin.
The meetings were advertised through news briefs
in local papers. Total attendance for the three open
houses was 30. Three written comments were
received by the St. Croix District during the 30-day
comment period.
In January 2007 a biological review of the Dis-tricts’
biological programs provided technical com-ments
and recommendations. In addition to
personnel from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
national wildlife refuges and District personnel, the
review team consisted of a panel of experts and
partners from the U.S. Geological Survey, the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan Science
Support Team, and the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources. The review team considered the
programs of both Districts.
A visitor services review was independently con-ducted
for each District. The visitor services review
of Leopold WMD was held March 29-31, 2006, and
helped clarify visitor services issues and identified
potential actions to consider in formulating alterna-tives.
The visitor services review team included
regional and refuge visitor services specialists, a
planner from the Service’s Regional Office in Min-neapolis,
and District staff.
Leopold WMD staff identified management issues and
concerns as part of the planning process. USFWS photo.
Publication of Draft CCP
A Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment was released to the
public on July 25, 2008. The availability of the docu-ment
was announced in the Federal Register and
through an update mailing to all parties on the plan-ning
mailing list. A press release was sent to media
outlets throughout the District, as well. The draft
document as either a compact disc or hard copy was
sent to 75 persons or organizations with special
interests in the District. In addition, the draft docu-ment
was distributed to approximately 50 persons
or organizations that had requested all documents
produced by the Region’s Conservation Planning
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
6
Division. The document was also available as an
Adobe pdf file on the Region’s planning website. A
public open house was held on August 13, 2008, at a
community room in the town of Portage to receive
any comments on the draft document. Two repre-sentatives
of the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources and a newspaper reporter attended. A
30-day comment period closed on August 25, 2008.
Comments received and responses to them are
included in an appendix to this document
Issues
Issues play an important role in planning. Issues
focus the planning effort on the most important top-ics
and provide a base for considering alternative
approaches to management and evaluating the con-sequences
of managing under these alternative
approaches. The issues and concerns expressed dur-ing
the first phase of planning have been organized
under the following headings.
Habitat Management
Background: Managing habitat is at the heart of
providing for wildlife. The presence of high quality
habitat is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition
for abundant wildlife use. For example, a WPA may
contain very high quality habitat for puddle ducks,
but they may not occur on the WPA at the usual
time because of poor conditions on wintering
grounds or extreme weather during migration.
When the forces external to the WPA weaken, how-ever,
the habitat base is there to provide for the
ducks. On the other hand, low quality habitat will
cause wildlife to be absent or less abundant. If a
WPA has inadequate habitat, ducks will be absent or
occur at very low levels, regardless of the timing or
duration of other factors such as weather or condi-tions
on wintering grounds. Recognizing that exter-nal
factors may limit wildlife use on a WPA, it is
reasonable to focus on the things that we can control
and provide habitat conditions that offer the great-est
potential for the species of concern to us
(Schroeder et al. 1998).
Main Concerns:
1. The WMD has identified management strate-gies
that would improve habitat conditions,
but the strategies can not be applied as
needed. The needs exceed the existing capa-bility
of staff hours and budgets. The result is
that habitat conditions offer less than their
potential for species of concern.
2. Invasive species are a particular challenge
within habitat management as they degrade
native habitats and reduce biological diversity.
Control techniques for invasive species place
further demands on the staff and budget of a
WMD, and effective control techniques have
not been identified for all invasive species.
3. To be most effective, habitat management
should be based on good data and sound sci-ence.
Basic biological information is required
to understand the habitat needs of species of
concern. Biological data is also needed to eval-uate
the effectiveness of management strate-gies
within an adaptive management
framework. Faced with pressing day-to-day
demands, WMD staff find it difficult to allo-cate
the time and resources to develop and
discover the desirable biological information.
Activities to answer this concern would
include literature searches, expert technical
workshops, and on-the-ground studies.
Habitat management, Leopold WMD. USFWS photo.
4. Management actions sometimes draw nega-tive
reaction from neighbors to WPAs. For
example, a neighbor may complain about the
appearance of a blackened field and the smoke
that was generated during a prescribed burn.
Or, a citizen may complain about the cutting of
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
7
trees as part of a prairie restoration. There is
concern that this negative reaction will lead to
opposition to the management activity and an
inability to apply the desired treatment. If we
are not able to apply particular strategies at
the appropriate time, habitat on the WPA will
change and there will be less benefit to wild-life.
5. Habitat management, control of invasive spe-cies,
biological monitoring, and community
outreach require staff and funding for pro-grams,
facilities, and equipment. Plans and
planning need to articulate these needs and
ensure they are represented in databases and
other documents used in budget decision-making.
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation
Background: The loss and degradation of habitat
has been identified as an important factor in the
decline of many species worldwide and at many
scales. Development is considered the most lasting
form of habitat loss, since the presence of pavement
and buildings hinders the return to natural condi-tions.
Development can result in habitat fragmenta-tion
where remaining patches of habitat not only
support less wildlife, but also may isolate popula-tions
vulnerable to a lack of genetic diversity and in
an increased “edge” effect, which may increase the
effect of predators and nest parasitism (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2002). Wisconsin, along with
other Midwest states, is forecast to have continued
housing growth in rural areas through 2030 (Rade-loff
et al. 2006). In its Wildlife Action Plan, the Wis-consin
DNR identified habitat loss and
fragmentation as a major issue faced by land man-agers
(Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
2005). The Wisconsin WMD counties are experienc-ing
and are expected to continue to experience hous-ing
development and its accompanying effects over
the next 25 years.
Main Concerns:
1. Development is occurring around some exist-ing
waterfowl production areas. The develop-ment
may be reducing the value of the WPAs
to wildlife – the effect is not known with cer-tainty.
If the value of the WPA for wildlife is
reduced, we need to think of how, or if, we
should continue to manage the land.
2. The effect of habitat loss and fragmentation is
best dealt with at a broad landscape level in
which several entities (federal, state, local,
non-governmental organizations, private land-owners)
have responsibilities. There is an
opportunity for improved coordination among
responsible entities.
3. How the forecasted development in the
WMDs should affect land acquisition decisions
is not clear. The criteria for land acquisition
used in landscapes dominated by agriculture
or other conservation lands may not be appro-priate
in counties with forecasted high levels
of development.
Land Acquisition
Background: Managers of a WMD, in addition to
managing existing WPAs, are responsible for identi-fying
tracts that would be worthwhile to acquire for
inclusion in the WMD. The primary goal of the
acquisition program is to acquire a complex of wet-lands
and uplands that provide habitat in which
waterfowl can successfully reproduce. Identifying
lands for purchase as waterfowl production habitat
requires weighing a number of biological factors
related to breeding waterfowl within an often rap-idly
changing social and economic context – all the
while keeping an eye on cost and efficiency.
Vesper Sparrow nest. USFWS photo.
Main Concerns:
1. Expanding housing development and chang-ing
land use in the Wisconsin WMDs offers
particular challenges to the land acquisition
program. The challenges are both direct and
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
8
indirect. Directly, development causes the loss
of opportunities through conversion of land to
uses that would be difficult to reclaim or
restore. And, areas near development are less
desirable as waterfowl production habitat.
Indirectly, the demand for development is
causing a rapid rise in property values with
the result that less habitat can be purchased
with the funds available.
2. With the current and forecasted continued
development, there is a concern that the possi-ble
loss of habitat will cause more acquisitions
to emphasize the opportunity considerations
(“buy while we can”) in comparison to the bio-logical
considerations and value to waterfowl.
3. How to proceed with land acquisition for the
WMDs has increased uncertainty given the
above concerns and the lack of biological
information on waterfowl production in areas
of residential development. The criteria that
guide acquisition in western Minnesota, the
Dakotas, and Montana are likely not applica-ble
to Wisconsin without modification.
Visitor Services
Background: The National Wildlife Refuge Sys-tem
Improvement Act of 1997 established six prior-ity
uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
photography, environmental education, interpreta-tion)
for the Refuge System, which includes water-fowl
production areas. The Service is to facilitate
these uses when compatible with the purpose of the
WPA and the mission of the Refuge System. WPAs
differ from national wildlife refuges in that they are
open to hunting, fishing, and trapping by specific
regulation and open to the other wildlife-dependent
activities by notification in general brochures avail-able
at the District office. New and existing WPAs
are thus “open until closed” in contrast to national
wildlife refuges, which are “closed until opened.”
Hunting has long been associated with WPAs. The
other wildlife-dependent activities are increasingly
being encouraged by developing interpretive signs,
kiosks, and wildlife trails. Identification signs and
small parking areas are usually placed at each WPA
to facilitate its use by the public.
Main Concerns:
1. Some visitor facilities are sub-standard.
Higher quality experiences and greater satis-faction
among visitors may be possible with
improved visitor facilities.
2. Unauthorized uses (horseback riding, ATVs,
dogs off leash, for example) occur on WPAs.
The uses lead to habitat degradation and dis-turbance
to wildlife that ultimately reduce
wildlife numbers and health. Better habitat
conditions and less wildlife disturbance would
result from a reduction in unauthorized uses.
3. The public sometimes requests use of WPAs
for other than the six priority uses. In order
for the public to understand our purpose and
mission and its relation to public uses, the
compatibility analyses should be consistent
within Wisconsin and, ideally, within the
Region.
Service Identity
Background: People often approach and interact
with staff of the WMD as if they work for the Wis-consin
Department of Natural Resources and
administer state areas. Because the missions of the
two agencies are different, the misperception can
lead to misunderstanding. When WMD employees
interact with people directly, the misperception can
be cleared up through conversation. Over the last
several years the Service has acted to develop an
improved “corporate identity” through unified stan-dards
for publications, uniforms, signs, and vehicles.
The experiences of Wisconsin WMD personnel sug-gest
that much work still remains in developing the
Service identity.
Main Concern:
1. If people do not understand the purpose and
mission of the WPAs and the Service, they are
not likely to understand our management. The
lack of understanding may lead to a lack of
support, and, ultimately, to indifference or
opposition to our management. If the public
had a clear perception of the Service, the pub-lic
would be able to differentiate between the
federal and state missions and understand the
actions of the WMD staff. With that under-standing
the public would make more
informed decisions about fish and wildlife
issues in general and, particularly relevant to
a WPA management, more informed reactions
to on-the-ground management activities.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
9
Wilderness Review
As part of the CCP process, lands within the Dis-trict
were reviewed for wilderness suitability. No
lands were considered suitable for Congressional
designation as wilderness as defined by the Wilder-ness
Act of 1964. The District does not contain 5,000
contiguous acres of roadless, natural lands. Nor
does the District possess any units of sufficient size
to make their preservation practicable as wilder-ness.
District lands and waters have been substan-tially
altered by humans, especially by agriculture.
Extensive modification of natural habitats and
manipulation of natural processes has occurred.
Adopting a “hands-off ” approach to management of
District lands would not facilitate the restoration of
a pristine or pre-settlement condition, which is the
goal of wilderness designation.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
10
Chapter 3: The District Environment and
Management
Introduction
Wetland Management District
The Leopold WMD covers 34 counties in eastern
Wisconsin (Figures 11 to 27 beginning on page 48).
This includes 21 counties approved for waterfowl
production area acquisition, a 10-county Partners
for Fish and Wildlife private lands district, and a 34-
county Wetland Management District, involving
management and enforcement of U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency Conservation
Easements (CEs). Currently, there are 53 fee-titled
WPAs and 45 CEs.
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
Historic Vegetation
The nature and distribution of vegetation types in
Wisconsin are described by Curtis, in his 1959 book
Vegetation of Wisconsin. The southern forests cov-ered
the southern half and western third of the state.
Dominant species were primarily oak on the drier
sites; sugar maple, basswood, slippery elm, red oak
and ironwood on the mesic sites; and silver maple
and American elm dominating the lowland sites. In
pre-settlement times these forests covered approxi-mately
5.2 million acres with another 7.3 million
acres of what is considered oak savanna also falling
into this category (Figure 2). In this region the
closed woodlands and oak savannas provided no dis-tinct
boundaries but blended together. Scattered
throughout the southern forest type were areas of
true tall grass prairie. These prairies covered just
over 2 million acres and were most dominant in the
southwest corner of the state, becoming smaller
and more scattered as one moved northeast. Forests
dominated the northern half of Wisconsin. These
northern forests supported jack, red, and white pine
with red maple and red oak on the dry sites. The
more mesic stands of the northern forests were dom-inated
by sugar maple but hemlock and/or beech may
have been co-dominant. Finally, the northern lowland
(swamp) forests of Wisconsin are split into the tama-rack-
black spruce bog forests, the white cedar-bal-sam
fir conifer swamps, and the black ash-yellow
birch-hemlock hardwood swamps.
Monarch butterfly. USFWS photo.
Land Use/Cover
Of the approximately 9.5 million acres of prairie
and oak savanna that Wisconsin hosted just 150
short years ago, only one-half of 1 percent (less than
10,000 acres) of the prairies and less than one-tenth
of 1 percent (less than 1,000 acres) of the savanna
remains. Farming, urban sprawl, fire suppression,
and other developments continue to threaten the
few acres of prairie and savanna that remain. A
quote that appears in Curtis’s book provides a view
of what we have lost in the last 150 years. This quote
Figure 2: Presettlement Landcover, Leopold Wetland Management District
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
11
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
12
is through the eyes of a Lieutenant D. Ruggles
(1835) in writing about the prairies around Fort
Winnebago in Columbia County:
“In some instances, the prairies are found
stretching for miles around, without a tree or
shrub, so level as scarcely to present a single
undulation; in others, those called the “rolling
prairies”, appears in undulation upon undula-tion,
as far as the eye can reach presenting a
view of peculiar sublimity, especially to the
beholder for the first time. It seems when in
verdure, a real troubled ocean, wave upon wave,
rolls before you, ever varying, ever swelling;
even the breezes play around to heighten the
illusion; so that here at near two thousand miles
from the ocean, we have a fac-simile of sublim-ity,
which no miniature imitation can approach.”
This is an interesting quote since the prairie Lt.
Ruggles was speaking of was known as the Arling-ton
Prairie. This prairie covered portions of Dane
and Columbia Counties and included the property
that is now called Schoenberg Marsh WPA. It is fit-ting
then, that this WPA is also where the District
has re-established local Wisconsin genotype native
grasses and forbs for harvest and further seeding.
Shoveler Sink WPA in northern Dane County
also lies within this “rolling prairie” and contains a
unique geological feature as indicated in its name.
Wisconsin geologists believe the sinkhole and the
surrounding sandstone bluff on the WPA are natu-ral
features formed at the close of the Pleistocene
era. In theory the site was initially a spring or
groundwater discharge feature. Over time, as the
hydraulic head in the bedrock aquifer system less-ened,
the system reversed itself and surface water
now flows into the “sink.”
The northern forests, much like the southern for-ests
and prairies, have been altered through logging,
farming, fire prevention, and urbanization. Because
of this, few stands of “virgin” timber exist outside of
those protected by conservation organizations, some
Forest Service and State Forest areas, lands within
the Wisconsin DNR State Natural Areas program.
Each of these communities are represented within
the boundaries of the Leopold WMD, from the prai-ries
and oak savannas of Green, Rock, Dane and
Columbia Counties to the tamarack-cedar swamps
of Forest and Florence Counties and all variations in
between. Each community provides opportunities
and challenges for restoration, protection, and man-agement,
which helps the District do its part to fur-ther
the Service mission of conserving, protecting,
and enhancing fish, wildlife, and plants and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people.
In 2002 about 60 percent of the land area in the
District was in farms (Table 1). On a statewide basis,
about 45 percent of Wisconsin land is farmland. The
counties with the highest proportion of farm land in
the District are Calumet, Columbia, Dodge, Fond du
Lac, and Rock with more 70 percent of their lands in
farms. The counties with the least proportion of
farm land are Adams, where about 44 percent of the
county is in forest, and Waukesha, where about 12
percent of the county is urban land cover. Both of
these counties have less than 30 percent of their
land in farms. Within the District, 174,584 acres of
land were enrolled in Conservation Reserve or Wet-lands
Reserve Programs in 2002. This represents
3.7 percent of the farm land or 2.3 percent of the
total land area of the District.
A land cover map was completed for Wisconsin in
1999. The map was created though automated com-puter
interpretation of satellite images. The work
was completed by the partnership WISCLAND.
The land cover for the District and nearby areas is
depicted in Figure 3 on page 14. Percent land cover
for each county are shown in Table 1.
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
Several migratory bird conservation plans have
been published over the last decade that can be used
to help guide management decisions for the Dis-tricts.
Bird conservation planning efforts have
evolved from a largely local, site-based orientation
to a more regional, even inter-continental, land-scape-
oriented perspective. Several transnational
migratory bird conservation initiatives have
emerged to help guide the planning and implemen-tation
process. The regional plans relevant to Leo-pold
WMD are:
# The Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes
Joint Venture Implementation Plan of the
North American Waterfowl Management
Plan
# The Partners in Flight Boreal Hardwood
Transition [land] Bird Conservation Plan
# The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes
Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan
Table 1: Land Cover in the Leopold Wetland Management District
County Urban Agricultural Grassland Forest Water Wetland Barren Shrubland
Adams 0.3% 19.3% 16.3% 44.6% 6.2% 11.0% 0.9% 1.4%
Calumet 1.3% 63.9% 1.4% 3.2% 19.3% 9.4% 1.4% 0.0%
Columbia 1.2% 50.9% 12.4% 17.7% 2.8% 13.9% 1.0% 0.1%
Dane 5.5% 54.6% 13.2% 15.8% 3.1% 6.3% 1.6% 0.0%
Dodge 1.5% 62.3% 9.8% 3.9% 3.9% 16.9% 1.7% 0.0%
Fond du Lac 2.0% 62.2% 10.5% 4.6% 5.5% 13.5% 1.7% 0.1%
Green Lake 1.2% 45.5% 11.8% 11.9% 7.2% 21.5% 0.7% 0.1%
Jefferson 1.8% 57.7% 11.6% 7.5% 4.5% 15.4% 1.3% 0.0%
Kenosha 6.8% 52.5% 11.8% 11.2% 3.1% 9.3% 3.8% 1.5%
Manitowoc 2.2% 73.1% 3.3% 6.5% 0.3% 13.3% 1.2% 0.0%
Marquette 0.5% 27.6% 17.1% 30.0% 2.6% 21.9% 0.2% 0.2%
Ozaukee 6.9% 49.2% 19.3% 9.1% 1.6% 10.6% 1.1% 2.2%
Racine 7.6% 53.9% 11.5% 12.1% 2.9% 6.9% 3.8% 1.3%
Rock 4.0% 72.0% 10.4% 8.5% 1.0% 3.9% 0.3% 0.0%
Sauk 1.5% 40.7% 13.9% 35.9% 1.2% 5.8% 1.0% 0.0%
Sheboygan 3.6% 57.6% 10.4% 11.4% 0.9% 12.0% 1.5% 1.5%
Walworth 2.6% 59.0% 10.1% 12.4% 3.8% 7.6% 4.0% 0.5%
Washington 3.4% 49.1% 16.6% 11.6% 1.4% 15.3% 1.9% 0.7%
Waukesha 11.9% 29.4% 24.3% 13.3% 4.6% 13.9% 1.6% 1.0%
Waushara 0.3% 34.6% 20.2% 27.4% 2.0% 13.9% 1.5% 0.0%
Winnebago 5.4% 50.9% 3.8% 3.4% 24.1% 11.0% 1.3% 0.0%
Wisconsin 1.6% 30.8% 10.7% 37.5% 3.4% 14.1% 1.1% 0.9%
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
13
# The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes
Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan
All four conservation plans will be integrated
under the umbrella of the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative (NABCI) in the Prairie
Hardwood Transition Bird Conservation Region
(BCR 23, see Figure 4 on page 15). Each of the bird
conservation initiatives has a process for designat-ing
priority species, modeled to a large extent on the
Partners in Flight method of computing scores
based on independent assessments of global relative
abundance, breeding and wintering distribution,
vulnerability to threats, area importance, and popu-lation
trend. These scores are often used by agen-cies
in developing lists of priority bird species. The
Service based its 2001 list of Non-game Birds of
Conservation Concern primarily on the Partners in
Flight, shorebird, and waterbird status assessment
scores.
Wildlife Species of Management
Concern
As described in the Biological Integriy, Diversity,
and Environmental Health policy (601 FW 3), the
goal of habitat management on units of the National
Wildlife Refuge System is to ensure the long-term
maintenance and, where possible, restoration of
healthy populations of native fish, wildlife, plants,
and their habitats. Resources of concern include
species, species groups, and/or communities that
support District purposes as well as Service trust
resource responsibilities (including threatened and
endangered species and migratory birds) .
Resources of concern are also native species and
Figure 3: Current Landcover, Leopold Wetland Management District
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
14
Figure 4: Bird Conservation Region, Leopold Wetland Management District
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
15
natural, functional communities such as those found
under historic conditions that are to be maintained
and, where appropriate, restored on a refuge (601
FW 3.10B[1]. Resources of concern take into
account the conservation needs identified within
international, national, regional, or ecosystem goals/
plans; state fish and wildlife conservaton plans;
recovery plans for threatened and endangered spe-cies;
regional fisheries management plans; and pre-viously
approved resource management plans.
Appendix D summarizes information on the sta-tus
and current habitat use of important wildlife
species found on lands administered by the District.
Individual species, or species groups, were chosen
because they are listed as Regional Resource Con-servation
Priorities or State-listed threatened or
endangered species. Other species are listed due to
their importance for economic or recreational rea-sons,
because the District or its partners monitor or
survey them, or for their status as an overabundant
or invasive species.
Other Conservation and Recreation
Lands in the Area
Other U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service land within
the District include Horicon National Wildlife Ref-uge
(more than 21,000 acres) and Fox River
National Wildlife Refuge (about 1,000 acres). Nece-dah
National Wildlife Refuge, which is more than
43,000 acres in size, is located a few miles west of
Adams County, which is in the northwest part of the
District.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
manages over 307,000 acres of conservation and rec-reation
lands within the District (Figure 5). The
DNR lands include 58 State Wildlife Areas with a
total acreage close to 144,000 acres. The largest
Wildlife Area is more than 12,000 acres. The DNR
manages more than 18,000 acres of natural areas,
22,000 acres of parks and trails, and nearly 29,000
acres of other wildlife habitat within the District.
Most of the lands managed for wildlife and some
other state lands are open to wildlife-dependent rec-reation.
Figure 5: Conservation Lands Adjacent to the Leopold Wetland Management District
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
16
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
17
Wisconsin Strategy for Wildlife
Species of Greatest Conservation Need
Using Wisconsin’s State Wildlife Action Plan
(WWAP), the State of Wisconsin has analyzed state
animal species, identified those most in need of
attention because they are declining or are depen-dent
on habitat or places that are declining, and sug-gested
conservation measures to ensure the
survival of these species. The document describing
their analysis and findings is filled with information
that helps identify conservation needs. For each
Ecological Landscape of Wisconsin (Figure 6), it
provides information on the overarching needs and
opportunities in the landscape as well as lists of the
natural communities that are major and important
management opportunities. It also lists those Spe-cies
of Greatest Conservation Need with high, mod-erate,
or low degrees of probability of occurring in
the landscape. The State’s analysis provides a good
basis for coordination of District activities with the
State and other conservation organizations.
Socioeconomic Setting
Just as the environmental characteristics vary
across the District, so do the socioeconomic charac-teristics
(Table 2 on page 19). Milwaukee influences
the southeastern portion of the District. The coun-ties
of Racine, Washington, and Waukesha in the
southeast have the highest median household
income and the highest median housing value in the
District. Most of the District has a low minority pop-ulation,
much like the State of Wisconsin. The
exception is the relatively higher Hispanic popula-tion
in the three southeastern counties of Kenosha,
Racine, and Walworth. Counties with a high urban
population include the counties Kenosha, Racine,
Waukesha near Milwaukee and the counties of Dane
(Madison), Rock (Janesville and Beloit), and Winne-bago
(Oshkosh). The counties with the highest per-centage
of college educated people in the District
are Dane, Ozaukee, and Waukesha. In comparison
to the rest of the District and the State of Wisconsin,
Adams, Marquette, and Waushara Counties in the
northwestern part of the District have a higher
median age, essentially no urban population, and
well below median household income and housing
value.
The population of the District is expected to grow
about 1 percent per year over the next 20 years
(Table 3 on page 20). The counties projected to grow
at the highest average annual rate are Calumet,
Dane, Kenosha, Sauk, Walworth, and Washington.
The District is projected to increase in population
about 374,000 from 2005 to 2025. For additional
detailed descriptions of the characteristics and pro-jections
for the counties and their implications for
recreation see the regional demographic profiles
prepared by the Applied Population Lab and Wis-consin
Department of Natural Resources for the
Wisconsin SCORP 2005-2010 planning process.
Potential District Visitors
We used block group data from the 2000 census to
estimate how many people lived near WPAs. For the
WPAs managed by the District, we learned that
about 302,000 people lived within 5 miles of a WPA
in 2000; 968,000 within 10 miles; and 1,549,000
within 15 miles.
In order to refine our understanding and esti-mate
the potential market for visitors to the WPAs,
we looked at 1998 consumer behavior data for an
area within an approximate 15-mile distance from
WPAs. The data were organized by zip code areas,
which made the buffers around the WPAs irregular
and not equidistant at all boundary points. We
thought the distance was a good approximation for a
reasonable drive to a WPA for an outing.
The consumer behavior data used in the analysis
is derived from Mediamark Research Inc. data. The
company collects and analyzes data on consumer
demographics, product and brand usage, and expo-sure
to all forms of advertising media. The con-sumer
behavior data were projected by Tetrad
Computer Applications Inc. to new populations
using Mosaic data. Mosaic is a methodology that
classifies neighborhoods into segments based on
their demographic and socioeconomic composition.
The basic assumption in the analysis is that people
in demographically similar neighborhoods will tend
to have similar consumption, ownership, and life-style
preferences. Because of the assumptions made
in the analysis, the data should be considered as rel-ative
indicators of potential, not actual participation.
We looked at potential participants in birdwatch-ing,
photography, freshwater fishing, hunting, and
hiking. The consumer behavior data apply to per-sons
more than 18 years old. For the area that we
Figure 6: Wisconsin Ecological Landscapes
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
18
Table 2: Socioeconomic Data, Counties Within the Leopold Wetland Management District1
County Total
Population
Percent
Urban
Median
Age
Percent
Female
College2
Educated
Percent
Hispanic
Percent
American
Indian
Percent
Asian
Percent
Black
Median
HH
Income
Median
Housing
Value3
Adams County 19,920 0.0 44.5 49.3 10 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 $33,408 $83,600
Calumet County 40,631 60.3 35.2 50 21 1.1 0.3 1.5 0.3 $52,569 $109,300
Columbia County 52,468 36.8 38.0 49.6 17 1.6 n/a 0.3 0.9 $45,064 $115,000
Dane County 426,526 84.5 33.2 50.5 41 3.4 n/a 3.5 4.0 $49,223 $146,900
Dodge County 85,897 47.8 37.0 47.7 13 2.5 n/a 0.3 2.5 $45,190 $105,800
Fond du Lac County 97,296 62.1 36.9 51 17 2.0 0.4 0.9 0.9 $45,578 $101,000
Green Lake County 19,105 25.1 40.9 51 14 2.1 02 0.3 02 $39,462 $90,100
Jefferson County 74,021 57.8 36.6 50.4 17 4.1 n/a 0.4 0.3 $46,901 $123,800
Kenosha County 149,577 88.6 34.8 50.4 19 7.2 n/a 0.9 5.1 $46,970 $120,900
Manitowoc County 82,887 60.9 38.3 50.5 15 1.6 0.4 2.0 n/a $43,286 $90,900
Marquette County 14,555 0.0 40.9 n/a 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a $35,746 $87,000
Ozaukee County 82,317 74.6 38.9 50.7 39 1.3 n/a 1.1 0.9 $62,745 $177,300
Racine County 188,831 87.0 36.1 50.5 20 7.9 n/a 0.7 10.5 $48,059 $111,000
Rock County 152,307 78.2 35.9 50.8 17 3.9 n/a 0.8 4.6 $45,517 $98,200
Sauk County 55,225 50.1 37.3 50.6 18 1.7 n/a 0.3 0.3 $41,941 $107,500
Sheboygan County 112,646 70.8 36.8 49.8 18 3.4 n/a 3.3 1.1 $46,237 $106,800
Walworth County 93,759 64.0 35.1 50.3 22 6.5 n/a 0.7 0.8 $46,274 $128,400
Washington County 117,493 65.2 36.6 50.1 22 1.3 n/a 0.6 0.4 $57,033 $155,000
Waukesha County 360,767 87.8 38.1 50.8 34 2.6 n/a 1.5 0.7 $62,839 $170,400
Waushara County 23,154 0.3 42.1 50 12 3.7 0.% 0.3 0.3 $37,000 $85,100
Winnebago County 156,763 84.2 35.4 50 23 2.0 0.5 1.8 1.1 $44,445 $97,700
Leopold WMD
State of Wisconsin 68.3% 36.0 50.6% 22 3.6 0.8 1.6 5.6 $43,791 $112,200
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
19
1. Source: Census 2000 as reported in Wisconsin SCORP
2. Percent college educated calculated for persons age 25 and older.
3. Housing value is calculated for owner occupied housing units.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
20
Table 3: Wisconsin Department of Administration Official Population Projections
June 2003
County Historical Projections Average Annual
Percent Increases
1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2005-2020 2005-2025
Adams 13,457 15,682 19,920 20,796 21,528 21,969 22,137 22,440 0.64 0.53
Calumet 30,867 34,291 40,631 44,182 47,398 50,381 53,473 56,336 2.10 1.83
Columbia 43,222 45,088 52,468 54,434 56,366 58,135 59,753 61,669 0.98 0.89
Dane 323,545 367,085 426,526 455,927 480,573 503,017 527,534 554,848 1.57 1.45
Dodge 75,064 76,559 85,897 88,192 90,565 92,842 94,882 96,828 0.76 0.65
Fond du Lac 88,964 90,083 97,296 100,163 103,031 105,777 108,494 110,748 0.83 0.70
Green Lake 18,370 18,651 19,105 19,321 19,666 19,913 20,064 20,032 0.38 0.25
Jefferson 66,152 67,783 75,767 79,030 82,161 85,178 88,302 91,464 1.17 1.05
Kenosha 123,137 128,181 149,577 157,935 165,678 173,624 181,693 190,145 1.50 1.36
Manitowoc 82,918 80,421 82,893 84,574 86,307 88,055 89,860 90,821 0.63 0.49
Marquette 11,672 12,321 14,555 15,052 15,579 16,035 16,293 16,583 0.82 0.68
Ozaukee 66,981 72,831 82,317 85,047 87,238 89,692 92,496 95,417 0.88 0.81
Racine 173,132 175,034 188,831 193,189 197,662 202,404 206,989 211,326 0.71 0.63
Rock 139,420 139,510 152,307 156,691 160,911 165,354 169,648 174,018 0.83 0.74
Sauk 43,469 46,975 55,225 58,121 60,930 63,520 65,821 68,208 1.32 1.16
Sheboygan 100,935 103,877 112,656 116,070 119,411 122,921 126,540 130,018 0.90 0.80
Walworth 71,507 75,000 92,013 96,182 100,634 106,588 111,237 113,506 1.57 1.20
Washington 84,848 95,328 117,496 123,570 129,085 134,255 139,214 145,314 1.27 1.17
Waukesha 280,203 304,715 360,767 374,891 386,460 397,922 409,570 424,472 0.93 0.88
Waushara 18,526 19,385 23,066 25,675 26,548 27,228 27,726 28,136 0.80 0.64
Winnebago 131,772 140,320 156,763 162,076 166,717 171,369 176,614 182,767 0.90 0.85
Leopold
WMD
1,988,161 2,109,120 2,406,076 2,511,118 2,604,448 2,696,179 2,788,340 2,885,096 1.10 0.99
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
21
included in our analysis, the estimated maximum
participants for each activity are: birdwatching
(66,398), photography (97,790), hunting (61,263),
freshwater fishing (115,837), and hiking (82,874). We
interpret the estimates to represent the core audi-ence
for repeated trips to a WPA.
Climate and Climate Change
Impacts
The District’s climate is continental with cold
winters and warm summers. Leopold Wetland Man-agement
District is large, and the long-term tem-perature
averages vary from one end of the District
to another. Lake Michigan moderates the tempera-tures
in the eastern portion of the District. The
average annual precipitation is higher in the south-ern
part of the District than in the central and
northern part. The normal temperatures and annual
precipitation averages for the period 1971-2000 for a
region that includes Columbia, Dane, Dodge, Green,
Jefferson, and Rock Counties present an adequate
indication of the climate of the District. The region
has an average annual temperature of 45.9 degrees
Fahrenheit. July is the warmest month with an
average temperature of 71.3 degrees Fahrenheit.
The coldest month is January with an average tem-perature
of 16.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual precip-itation
is 34.11 inches. The average monthly
precipitation exceeds 3 inches for April, May, and
September. The average monthly precipitation
exceeds 4 inches for June, July, and August.
(Source: Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service,
Wisconsin 2004 Agricultural Statistics, at
www.nass.usda.gov/wi/rlsetoc.htm.)
The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an
order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies,
under its direction, that have land management
responsibilities to consider potential climate change
impacts as part of long range planning endeavors.
The increase of carbon dioxide within the earth’s
atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in
surface temperature commonly referred to as global
warming. In relation to comprehensive conservation
planning for wetland management districts, carbon
sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related
impact to be considered in planning. The
U.S. Department of Energy’s “Carbon Sequestra-tion
Research and Development” defines carbon
sequestration as “...the capture and secure storage
of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or
remain in the atmosphere.”
Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon
sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts –
grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and desert –
are effective both in preventing carbon emission and
acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric car-bon
dioxide. The Department of Energy report’s
conclusions noted that ecosystem protection is
important to carbon sequestration and may reduce
or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the ter-restrial
biosphere.
Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the
heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife
refuges and wetland management districts. The
actions proposed in this CCP would conserve or
restore land and habitat, and would thus retain
existing carbon sequestration on the District. This
in turn contributes positively to efforts to mitigate
human-induced global climate change.
One Service activity in particular – prescribed
burning – releases carbon dioxide directly to the
atmosphere from the biomass consumed during
combustion. However, there is actually no net loss of
carbon, since new vegetation quickly germinates
and sprouts to replace the burned-up biomass and
sequesters or assimilates an approximately equal
amount of carbon as was lost to the air (Boutton et
al. 2006).
Several impacts of climate change have been
identified that may need to be considered and
addressed in the future:
Muskrat. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
22
# Habitat available for cold water fish such as
trout and salmon in lakes and streams could
be reduced.
# Forests may change, with some tree species
shifting their range northward or dying out,
and other trees moving in to take their place.
# Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breed-ing
habitat due to stronger and more fre-quent
droughts.
# Changes in the timing of migration and nest-ing
could put some birds out of sync with the
life cycles of their prey species.
# Animal and insect species historically found
farther south may colonize new areas to the
north as winter climatic conditions moderate.
The managers and resource specialists on the
District need to be aware of the possibility of change
due to global warming. When feasible, documenting
long-term vegetation, species, and hydrologic
changes should become a part of research and moni-toring
programs on the District. Adjustments in
management direction may be necessary over the
course of time to adapt to a changing climate.
The following is an excerpt from the 2000 report,
Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The
Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and
Change, produced by the National Assessment Syn-thesis
Team, an advisory committee chartered
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to help
the US Global Change Research Program fulfill its
mandate under the Global Change Research Act of
1990. These excerpts are from the section of the
report focused upon the eight-state Midwest region.
Observed Climate Trends
Over the 20th century, the northern portion of the
Midwest, including the upper Great Lakes, has
warmed by almost 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees
Celsius), while the southern portion, along the Ohio
River valley, has cooled by about 1 degree Fahren-heit
(0.5 degree Celsius). Annual precipitation has
increased, with many of the changes quite substan-tial,
including as much as 10 to 20 percent increases
over the 20th century. Much of the precipitation has
resulted from an increased rise in the number of
days with heavy and very heavy precipitation
events. There have been moderate to very large
increases in the number of days with excessive mois-ture
in the eastern portion of the basin.
Scenarios of Future Climate
During the 21st century, models project that tem-peratures
will increase throughout the Midwest,
and at a greater rate than has been observed in the
20th century. Even over the northern portion of the
region, where warming has been the largest, an
accelerated warming trend is projected for the 21st
century, with temperatures increasing by 5 to 10
degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 6 degrees Celsius). The
average minimum temperature is likely to increase
as much as 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit (0.5 to 1
degree Celsius) more than the maximum tempera-ture.
Precipitation is likely to continue its upward
trend, at a slightly accelerated rate; 10 to 30 percent
increases are projected across much of the region.
Despite the increases in precipitation, increases in
temperature and other meteorological factors are
likely to lead to a substantial increase in evapora-tion,
causing a soil moisture deficit, reduction in lake
and river levels, and more drought-like conditions in
much of the region. In addition, increases in the pro-portion
of precipitation coming from heavy and
extreme precipitation are very likely.
Midwest Key Issues
Reduction in Lake and River Levels
Water levels, supply, quality, and water-based
transportation and recreation are all climate-sensi-tive
issues affecting the region. Despite the pro-jected
increase in precipitation, increased
evaporation due to higher summer air temperatures
American badger. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
23
is likely to lead to reduced levels in the Great Lakes.
Of 12 models used to assess this question, 11 sug-gest
significant decreases in lake levels while one
suggests a small increase. The total range of the 11
models’ projections is less than a 1-foot increase to
more than a 5-foot decrease. A 5-foot (1.5-meter)
reduction would lead to a 20 to 40 percent reduction
in outflow to the St. Lawrence Seaway. Lower lake
levels cause reduced hydropower generation down-stream,
with reductions of up to 15 percent by 2050.
An increase in demand for water across the region
at the same time as net flows decrease is of particu-lar
concern. There is a possibility of increased
national and international tension related to
increased pressure for water diversions from the
Great Lakes as demands for water increase. For
smaller lakes and rivers, reduced flows are likely to
cause water quality issues to become more acute. In
addition, the projected increase in very heavy pre-cipitation
events will likely lead to increased flash
flooding and worsen agricultural and other non-point
source pollution as more frequent heavy rains
wash pollutants into rivers and lakes. Lower water
levels are likely to make water-based transportation
more difficult with increases in the costs of naviga-tion
of 5 to 40 percent. Some of this increase will
likely be offset as reduced ice cover extends the nav-igation
season. Shoreline damage due to high lake
levels is likely to decrease 40 to 80 percent due to
reduced water levels.
Adaptations: A reduction in lake and river levels
would require adaptations such as re-engineering of
ship docks and locks for transportation and recre-ation.
If flows decrease while demand increases,
international commissions focusing on Great Lakes
water issues are likely to become even more impor-tant
in the future. Improved forecasts and warnings
of extreme precipitation events could help reduce
some related impacts.
Agricultural Shifts
Agriculture is of vital importance to this region,
the nation, and the world. It has exhibited a capacity
to adapt to moderate differences in growing season
climate, and it is likely that agriculture would be
able to continue to adapt. With an increase in the
length of the growing season, double cropping, the
practice of planting a second crop after the first is
harvested, is likely to become more prevalent. The
carbon dioxide fertilization effect is likely to
enhance plant growth and contribute to generally
higher yields. The largest increases are projected to
occur in the northern areas of the region, where
crop yields are currently temperature limited. How-ever,
yields are not likely to increase in all parts of
the region. For example, in the southern portions of
Indiana and Illinois, corn yields are likely to decline,
with 10-20 percent decreases projected in some loca-tions.
Consumers are likely to pay lower prices due
to generally increased yields, while most producers
are likely to suffer reduced profits due to declining
prices. Increased use of pesticides and herbicides
are very likely to be required and to present new
challenges.
Adaptations: Plant breeding programs can use
skilled climate predictions to aid in breeding new
varieties for the new growing conditions. Farmers
can then choose varieties that are better attuned to
the expected climate. It is likely that plant breeders
will need to use all the tools of plant breeding,
including genetic engineering, in adapting to climate
change. Changing planting and harvest dates and
planting densities, and using integrated pest man-agement,
conservation tillage, and new farm tech-nologies
are additional options. There is also the
potential for shifting or expanding the area where
certain crops are grown if climate conditions
become more favorable. Weather conditions during
the growing season are the primary factor in year-to-
year differences in corn and soybean yields.
Droughts and floods result in large yield reductions;
severe droughts, like the drought of 1988, cause
yield reductions of over 30%. Reliable seasonal fore-casts
are likely to help farmers adjust their prac-tices
from year to year to respond to such events.
Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems
The Upper Midwest has a unique combination of
soil and climate that allows for abundant coniferous
tree growth. Higher temperatures and increased
evaporation will likely reduce boreal forest acreage,
and make current forestlands more susceptible to
pests and diseases. It is likely that the southern
transition zone of the boreal forest will be suscepti-ble
to expansion of temperate forests, which in turn
will have to compete with other land use pressures.
However, warmer weather coupled with beneficial
effects of increased carbon dioxide is likely to lead to
an increase in tree growth rates on marginal forest-lands
that are currently temperature-limited. Most
climate models indicate that higher air tempera-tures
will cause greater evaporation and hence
reduced soil moisture, a situation conducive to for-est
fires. As the 21st century progresses, there will
be an increased likelihood of greater environmental
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
24
stress on both deciduous and coniferous trees, mak-ing
them susceptible to disease and pest infestation,
likely resulting in increased tree mortality.
As water temperatures in lakes increase, major
changes in freshwater ecosystems will very likely
occur, such as a shift from cold water fish species,
such as trout, to warmer water species, such as bass
and catfish. Warmer water is also likely to create an
environment more susceptible to invasions by non-native
species. Runoff of excess nutrients (such as
nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer) into lakes
and rivers is likely to increase due to the increase in
heavy precipitation events. This, coupled with
warmer lake temperatures, is likely to stimulate the
growth of algae, depleting the water of oxygen to
the detriment of other living things. Declining lake
levels are likely to cause large impacts to the cur-rent
distribution of shoreline wetlands. There is
some chance that some of these wetlands could
gradually migrate, but in areas where their migra-tion
is limited by the topography, they would disap-pear.
Changes in bird populations and other native
wildlife have already been linked to increasing tem-peratures
and more changes are likely in the future.
Wildlife populations are particularly susceptible to
climate extremes due to the effects of drought on
their food sources.
Geology and Soils
A majority of the District is quite similar to the
glaciated prairie region of western Minnesota. This
similarity is recognized with the inclusion of these
glaciated prairie areas in Category 2, Prairie and
Pothole Parklands, in the Service’s revised Water-fowl
Habitat Acquisition Plan. The counties that lie
within the Leopold WMD boundaries owe much of
their ecology to the glacial history of Wisconsin (see
Figure 7). Glaciers most recently flowed into Wis-consin
about 25,000 years ago and reached their
greatest extent, covering approximately two-thirds
of the state, some 14,000 to 16,000 years ago. The
retreat of the ice front was interrupted a number of
times by re-advances, the last one touched north-western
Wisconsin about 10,000 years ago. The
advancing ice was channeled into the lowlands now
occupied by Lakes Superior and Michigan, Green
Bay, and the Fox River, and was impeded by the
uplands of the Bayfield, Keweenaw and Door Penin-sulas.
The ice thus split into six major lobes as it
flowed southward across the state. The Green Bay
Lobe, which had few obstructions in its path, pene-trated
as far south as present-day Janesville in Rock
County.
Soil types have characteristic properties that
determine their potential and limitations for specific
land uses. Knowledge of soils can contribute to man-aging
the District’s wildlife habitat programs. The
Soil Survey Geographic Database is the most
detailed level of soil mapping done by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). This
database was completed for Wisconsin in 2006. At
the level of the waterfowl production area, soil data
can be used to identify the potential natural vegeta-tion.
Water and Hydrology
Hydrologic features vary across the ecological
landscapes of the District, although the past drain-ing
of wetlands is consistent throughout the Dis-trict.
According to the Wisconsin DNR, watershed
and groundwater pollution vary considerably across
the District (see Figure 8 on page 26). From a prac-tical
perspective, the relevance of hydrology to the
establishment and management of a WPA is best
analyzed and discussed at a local scale.
Ruddy Duck. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
25
District Resources
Wetlands
Wetlands are lands where saturation with water
is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil
development and the types of plant and animal com-munities
living in the soil and on its surface (Cowar-din
et al. 1979). It is estimated that the contiguous
United States contained 221 million acres of wet-lands
just 200 years ago (Dahl 1990). By the mid-
1970s, only 46 percent of the original acreage
remained (Tiner 1984). Wetlands now cover about 5
percent of the landscape of the lower 48 states.
Wetlands are important to both migratory and
resident wildlife. They serve as breeding and nest-ing
habitat for migratory birds and as wintering
habitat for many species of resident wildlife.
Figure 7: Ice Age Deposits of Wisconsin
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
26
Humans also benefit from wetlands as these habi-tats
improve water quality and quantity, reduce
flooding effects, and provide areas for recreation.
Wetlands are classified using a number of attri-butes
including vegetation, water regimes (the
length of time water occupies a specific area), and
water chemistry. District wetlands are classified
using the following water regime descriptions (Cow-ardin
et al. 1979):
Figure 8: Wisconsin Groundwater Contamination Susceptitiblity Model
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
27
# Temporarily flooded-surface water is present
for brief periods during the growing season.
The water table usually lies below the soil
surface most of the season, so plants that
grow in both uplands and wetlands are char-acteristic.
# Seasonally flooded-surface water is present
for extended periods especially early in the
growing season, but is absent by the end of
the season in most years. When surface
water is absent, the water table is often near
the surface.
# Semipermanently flooded-surface water per-sists
throughout the growing season in most
years. When surface water is absent, the
water table is usually at or very near the land
surface.
# Permanently flooded-water covers the land
throughout the year in nearly all years. Veg-etation
is composed of obligate hydrophytes,
such as cattails.
The District has focused on saving and restoring
small wetlands. Wetland diversity is important
because wetlands change continuously; a single wet-land
can not be maximally productive all the time.
Waterfowl use different types of wetlands at differ-ent
times during the breeding season. Laying hens
may forage in ephemeral, temporary, and seasonal
wetlands early in the season and shift to semi-per-manent
and permanent wetlands after the brood is
hatched. Marsh birds need a variety of wetlands in
close proximity so they can shift from one wetland
to another as the wetlands cycle through different
phases. Wetland complexes include a variety of
basins, some shallow and some deep, in close prox-imity.
Diverse wetland complexes are rare today
because most shallow ephemeral, temporary, and
seasonal basins have been drained.
Freshwater wetlands like those in the District are
among the most productive in the world (Weller
1982). The dynamic water cycle creates a rich envi-ronment
for many waterfowl and other marsh birds.
Cycling water accelerates decomposition of marsh
vegetation, resulting in a natural fertilizer. When
the basins recharge in the spring, the water
becomes a soup of nutrients and supports a diverse
and healthy population of aquatic invertebrates,
which feed reproducing waterfowl and marsh birds
throughout the spring and summer. In the larger
basins, the vegetation changes from densely closed
cattail or bullrush to completely open over a period
of years. In the process of transition, the cover vege-tation
moves through a phase, known as hemi-marsh,
when clumps of emergent vegetation are
interspersed with open water (Weller 1982). In this
phase, the structure of the vegetation itself creates
habitat and stimulates the production of aquatic
invertebrates. The marsh, in this phase, hosts the
maximum number of marsh birds. Unfortunately,
the phase is only temporary and most wetlands
cycle out of it in 1 to 3 years.
Wetlands within the District occur in a diverse
distribution of sizes, types, locations, and associa-tions.
Table 4 displays the amount of wetland acres
by type within the District. This data is likely
skewed against Type I wetlands because of their
ephemeral nature. Additionally many Type VI wet-lands
have converted from Type II sedge meadows
as a result of drainage and the exclusion of fire.
Table 4: Wetland Acres by Type,
Leopold Wetland Management
District
Wetland
Feature
Cowardin
Classification
Acres
River R 14.3
Stock Pond PUBF 5.6
Wetland Type I Seasonally-flooded basin
(PEMA)
12.7
Wetland Type II Inland fresh meadow
(PEMB)
1,732.2
Wetland Type III Inland shallow fresh
marsh (PEMC)
1,765.1
Wetland Type IV Inland deep fresh marsh
(PEMC)
990.1
Wetland Type V Inland open fresh marsh
(PEMH)
25.4
Wetland Type VI Shrub swamp (PSSA) 359.3
Wetland TypeVII Wooded swamp (PFOB) 360.3
Total Wetland Acres 5,265.1
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
28
Plant Communities
Plant Communities Associated With Wetlands
Wetlands throughout the District provide both
resting cover and food resources for migratory
birds. Substantial emergent and submergent
aquatic vegetation occurs in freshwater wetlands.
Sago pondweed, coontail, and duckweed occur in the
deeper, more permanently flooded zones, while cat-tail,
bulrush, burreed, and smartweed grow in shal-low
areas that may go dry during some periods.
Most palustrine basins exhibit concentric zones of
vegetation that are dominated by different plant
species (Kantrud et al. 1989). The terms commonly
used in reference to these zones are, in decreasing
order of water permanency are: deep marsh, shal-low
marsh, and wet meadow. The water regime in a
deep marsh zone is usually semipermanent. Domi-nant
plants include cattail, bulrush, submergent or
floating plants, and submergent vascular plants, but
this zone also may be devoid of vegetation if bottom
sediments are unconsolidated. Shallow marsh zones
are usually dominated by emergent grasses, sedges,
and some forbs, but submergent or floating vascular
plants also may occur. Wet meadow zones also are
typically dominated by grasses, rushes, and sedges,
whereas submergent or floating plants are absent.
A variety of wildlife species, from ducks to rails to
songbirds, use this community. Common breeding
bird species include: Mallard, Blue-wing Teal, Wood
Duck, Canada Geese, Sora Rail, Virginia Rail, San-dhill
Crane, American Bittern, Least Bittern, Red-winged
Blackbird, Yellow-headed Blackbird, Marsh
Wren.
Species present during the fall migration include:
Scaup, Ring-necked Duck, Widgeon, Tundra Swan,
Greater Yellowlegs, Lesser Yellowlegs, Solitary
Sandpiper, Pectoral Sandpiper, Least Sandpiper,
Semipalmated Sandpipers.
Herptile species such as Blanchard’s cricket frog,
Blanding’s turtle, Butler’s garter snake, pickerel
frog, and four-toed salamander are a few of the spe-cies
of concern in Wisconsin associated with the var-ious
wetland types. Several mammal species of
concern, primarily bat species such as eastern red,
hoary, silver-haired, and northern long-eared bats
are highly associated with District wetlands.
Plant Communities Associated With Uplands
Upland vegetation is essential to provide nesting
habitat for migratory and resident bird species.
Upland habitats also provide necessary habitat
requirements for resident wildlife throughout the
year. The District currently uses a variety of man-agement
techniques to maintain and enhance upland
habitat conditions including prescribed fire, native
grass seeding, tree cutting, and invasive species
management.
Grasslands
Past habitat management emphasized the estab-lishment
of warm-season native grasses to provide
dense nesting cover for waterfowl. Several areas on
the District were planted to monotypic stands of
switchgrass. These fields initially provided good
cover for nesting birds; however, they lacked species
composition and structural diversity. The District
has begun restoring grasslands to a relatively
diverse mixture of native grasses and forbs. The
native grass restoration process generally involves
seeding directly into or onto croplands that have
come out of production as a result of WPA acquisi-
Becker WPA in Columbia County, part of Leopold WMD. tion or cropping idle/cool-season grass fields for 3 or
USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
29
more years to eliminate exotic cool-season grass
seeds and rhizomes, control Canada thistle and
other invasive plants, and prepare a seed bed for
planting native grass seed.
Some uplands in the District were historically
comprised of cool-and warm-season grasses charac-teristic
of the tall-grass prairie. Vegetation composi-tion
at local levels was determined by numerous
interrelated factors, including elevation, topogra-phy,
climate, soil characteristics, herbivory, and fire.
Species typical of the historical mixed-grass prairie
include big bluestem, little bluestem, Indian grass,
porcupine grass, prairie dropseed, and switchgrass,
prairie docks, lead plant, heath and smooth asters,
sand coreopsis, prairie sunflower, flowering spurge,
beebalm, prairie coneflower, and spiderwort.
The District has been planting native grasses and
forbs as former croplands are converted to more
favorable wildlife habitat. The District has approxi-mately
4,900 acres of grassland in block sizes that
range from less than 1 acre to just over 230 acres
(Table 5).
Bird species that benefit from the District’s
grasslands include Bobolink, Dickcissel, Eastern
and Western Meadowlark, Northern Harrier, Hen-slow’s
Sparrow, Upland Sandpiper, and Sedge
Wren. Reptiles and amphibians of concern in Wis-consin
including boreal chorus frog, Butler’s garter
snake, eastern massasauga rattlesnake, bull snake,
Blanding’s turtle, ornate box turtle, and western
slender glass lizard are highly associated with the
various grassland community types. Least shrew,
prairie vole, badger, and western harvest mouse are
just a few mammal species of conservation concern
in Wisconsin which are commonly associated with
grasslands.
Shrub-Scrub
This community is often found in bands around
the margins of wetlands, lakes, floodplains, and gla-cial
lakebeds. Historically shrub wetlands occurred
throughout southern Wisconsin and were an inte-gral
part of prairie/savanna landscapes. Drainage
for the conversion to cropland or marsh hay produc-tion
likely had a negative impact on the total acre-age.
However, the elimination of fire from the
landscape permitted the succession of many acres
from sedge meadow/wet prairie type communities to
shrub/scrub habitats.
Shrub/scrub communities in the District are pri-marily
limited shrub wetland or shrub carr wet-lands.
Dominant plant species include red osier and
silky dogwood, meadowsweet and various willows.
Canada bluejoint and reed canarygrass are common
grass species.
Some of the bird species of concern in Wisconsin
that benefit from this community type are American
Woodcock, Bell’s Vireo, Willow Flycatcher, and
Black-billed Cuckoo. Shrub/scrub wetlands also
provide preferred habitat for several reptiles and
amphibians of concern in the state including But-ler’s
garter snake, eastern massasauga rattlesnake,
four-toed salamander, queen snake, western ribbon
snake, and wood turtle.
Forests
Forest communities most often associated with
District WPAs are southern dry and dry-mesic
woodlands dominated by oaks with basswood, sugar
and red maples, shagbark hickory, and black cherry.
An understory shrub layer of brambles (Rubus
spp.), gray dogwood and hazelnut are often associ-ated
with these forest types. Most of these are small
farmland woodlots, and remnants of larger wood-land
ecosystems. Oak savanna with less than 50 per-cent
canopy coverage of oak species (burr, white,
and black) and a herbaceous layer similar to that of
Table 5: Grassland Features, Leopold Wetland Management District
Grassland Feature Min. Acres Max. Acres Ave. Acres Total Acres
Grass Introduced 0.048 49.057 5.1237 809.6
Grass Native Prairie 0.382 11.562 2.9821 47.7
Grass Seeded Cool 1.771 53.243 13.5318 622.5
Grass Seeded Warm 0.394 95.462 16.4 3,394.8
Total Grassland Acreage 4,874.5
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
30
the prairies, and oak woodlands, considered an
intermediary between the oak savanna and oak for-est,
were historically significant components of the
forest community types that existed throughout
much of southern Wisconsin. Fire suppression and
conversion to agriculture have all but eliminated
these forest types from the landscape. Sugar maple
is the dominant species on mesic forest sites with
basswood and, near Lake Michigan, beech poten-tially
co-dominant. Another common forest type
that occurs is the floodplain forest community.
These are forested wetlands along the floodplains of
large rivers and may include silver maple, river
birch, green and black ash, hackberry, swamp white
oak, and cottonwood. Wood nettle, stinging nettle,
sedges (Carex grayii, C. lupulina, C. hystericina,
and C. tuckermanii), native grasses (Cinna arundi-nacea,
Elymus villosus, and Leersia virginica),
ostrich fern and green-headed coneflower are
important understory herbs, and lianas such as Vir-ginia
creepers, grapes, Canada moonseed, and poi-son-
ivy are often common.
Several bird species of concern are highly associ-ated
with these forested community types including
Red-headed Woodpecker, Whip-poor-will, Wood
Thrush, Acadian Flycatcher, and Cerulean Warbler.
Ornate box turtle, black rat snake, and wood turtle
are examples of herptile species of concern that are
also considered highly associated with these forests.
Bat species such the eastern red, hoary, silver-haired,
and northern long-eared along with the
woodland vole and the northern flying squirrel, are
highly associated with District woodlands.
Shrubs and Trees in Fencerows
Some WPAs contain old fencerows that are rem-nants
from previous land owners. The fencerows
contain shrubs and trees that are beneficial for
some wildlife and are, generally, a detriment to
grassland bird species. Fencelines in areas of inten-sive
agriculture may provide important habitat,
travel corridors, and refugia for some species. How-ever,
in grassland ecosystems, these same features
function as linear woody edges and are sources for
invasive species, provide predator roosts and travel
corridors, attract nest predators and parasites, and
decrease the value of associated grasslands. As a
result, attempts are generally made to remove rem-nant
treelines/fencelines separating grassland
fields.
Fish and Wildlife Communities
The variety of vegetative communities on the Dis-trict
provides habitat for both wetland and upland
associated wildlife, such as ducks, herons, song-birds,
deer, and turkey. The District also hosts fur-bearers,
marsh birds, raptors, and a variety of
woodland mammals, in addition to amphibians and
reptiles. The majority of wetlands are too shallow to
be fish habitat.
Birds
The District encompasses a broad range of habi-tats
over a large geographic area. A bird species list
of WPAs along the Southern Lake Michigan Coastal
area would likely contain a number species not
found on lands in the Southeastern Glacial Plains.
As a result the District has not completed a defini-tive
bird species list. The Wisconsin Society for
Ornithology (WSO) Annotated Checklist for the
state includes 426 valid species found in Wisconsin
over the past 160 years. From this list the WSO has
developed a field checklist of 345 species of regular
to casual occurrence. The Horicon Marsh Bird Club
has developed an even more refined checklist of 249
species (Appendix C). Because of the similarity in
habitats and management this has been adopted as
the checklist for District WPAs. A few of the most
commonly identified species are listed in Table 6.
Three properties managed by the District, Rob-bins
Shorebird WPA, Uihlein WPA, and Vienna
WPA, are not only productive waterfowl areas but
are also considered some of the best shorebird view-ing
areas in the state.
Becker Savanna, part of Leopold WMD. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
31
The Robbins Shorebird WPA, named for
renowned Wisconsin ornithologist Sam Robbins, is
in an area regarded as one of Wisconsin’s best
inland shorebird viewing areas. Known to Wisconsin
birders as the “AW Ponds” this area supports over
20 migrating shorebird species including all plovers,
Red Knot, White-rumped Sandpiper, Baird’s Sand-piper,
Stilt Sandpiper, Western Sandpiper, Buff-breasted
Sandpiper, Ruff, Dowitcher and godwits,
and Wilson’s and Red-necked Phalaropes.
Uihlein WPA in Winnebago County is another
locally significant shorebird location (4,000-20,000
birds annually). Species such as Greater Yellowlegs,
Lesser Yellowlegs, Solitary Sandpiper, Dunlin,
Short-billed Dowitcher, Wilson’s snipe, American
Woodcock, and Wilson’s Phalarope commonly stop
over at this site.
Vienna WPA in northern Dane County lies in an
area commonly referred as the “Highway V Ponds
Area.” While this area is considered a minor site
(500-4,000 birds annually) the proximity to Madison
makes the area a prime birding destination.
Table 6: Most Common Bird Species, Leopold WMD 1
Pied-billed Grebe Eastern Kingbird Western Meadowlark
American Bittern Red-eyed Vireo Brewers Blackbird
Great Blue Heron Blue Jay Common Grackle
Green Heron American Crow Brown-headed Cowbird
Canada Goose Tree Swallow American Goldfinch
Wood Duck Barn Swallow House Sparrow
Mallard Black-capped Chickadee Blue-winged Teal
White-breasted Nuthatch Northern Harrier Sedge Wren
Red-tailed Hawk Marsh Wren American Kestrel
Eastern Bluebird Ring-necked Pheasant American Robin
Wild Turkey Gray Catbird Virginia Rail
Tennessee Warbler Sora Nashville Warbler
American Coot Yellow Warbler Sandhill Crane
Magnolia Warbler Killdeer Yellow-rumped Warbler
Greater Yellowlegs Black-throated Green
Warbler
Lesser Yellowlegs
Palm Warbler Wilson’s Snipe Black-and-white Warbler
American Woodcock American Tree Sparrow Ring-billed Gull
Savannah Sparrow Herring Gull Fox Sparrow
Mourning Dove Song Sparrow Great Horned Owl
Swamp Sparrow Barred Owl White-throated Sparrow
Belted Kingfisher Dark-eyed Junco Downy Woodpecker
Northern Cardinal Hairy Woodpecker Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Northern Flicker Dickcissel Eastern Wood-Pewee
Bobolink Least Flycatcher Red-winged Blackbird
Eastern Phoebe Eastern Meadowlark
1. Species in bold are listed as USFWS Region 3 Species of Concern
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
32
Mammals
The District has not completed extensive mam-mal
inventories on the WPAs. A checklist of mam-mals
in Wisconsin can be found in Appendix C. A
brief list of species likely to occur on WPAs,
although they have not all been confirmed, is shown
in Table 7.
Amphibians and Reptiles
The District has not completed extensive herptile
inventories on the WPAs. A checklist of amphibians
and reptiles of Wisconsin can be found in Appendix
C. A brief list of species likely to occur on WPAs,
although they have not all been confirmed, is shown
in Table 8.
Invertebrates
No formalized invertebrate sampling has been
conducted on the WPAs. Freshwater invertebrates
are important waterfowl food, but no studies have
been done to determine the species present.
Threatened and Endangered Species
The District coordinates Eastern prairie fringed
orchid management and monitoring activities on the
Uihlein WPA. The success of this project is primar-ily
due to the efforts of the Partners for Plants vol-unteers
(a subgroup of the Garden Club of
America), Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,
Trade, and Consumer Protection, and the U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service Green Bay Ecological Services.
This 10-year project has monitored the plant popu-lation
on the WPA and its relationship to habitat
management and water conditions.
Wilcox WPA in Waushara County hosts a popula-tion
of Karner blue butterfly as a result of a lupine
planting established as a seed source. The District is
in consultation with Ecological Resources office in
Green Bay to mitigate potential issues, per the
Karner blue butterfly Wisconsin Habitat Conserva-tion
Plan, with take as a result of habitat manage-ment
and seed harvest activities.
In recent years, reintroduced Whooping Cranes
have been identified on Anderson WPA in Columbia
County and Uihlein WPA in Winnebago County. The
birds have been using the wetlands on these proper-ties
for roosting and feeding and no nesting activity
has taken place on these properties as of yet.
Several Wisconsin state listed species and species
of concern either have the potential to be found on,
or are documented as using, WPAs throughout the
District. A list of state species of concern, threat-ened
and endangered species can be found in
Appendix D.
Threats to Resources
Invasive Species
Three categories of undesirable species (invasive,
exotic, and noxious) are found within the District.
Invasive species are those that cause or are likely to
cause economic or environmental harm or harm to
human health. Executive Order 13112 requires the
District to monitor, prevent, and control the pres-ence
of invasive species. Exotic species are species
that are not native to a particular ecosystem. Ser-vice
policy directs the District to try to maintain
habitats free of exotic species. Noxious weeds are
designated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
or the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture as spe-
Prairie fringed orchid. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
33
cies which, when established, are destructive, com-petitive
or difficult to control. Canada thistle and
field bindweed (creeping Jenny), and leafy spurge
are introduced species classified as noxious weeds in
Wisconsin. Purple loosestrife and multiflora rose
are introduced species classified as nuisance weeds.
Invasive, exotic and noxious weed species are rel-atively
abundant within the District. These species
are quite diverse and are found in most District hab-itats,
although some are typically found in agricul-tural
fields or lakes and ponds. Currently, most
District control efforts focus on Canada thistle (Cir-sium
averense), spotted knapweed (Centaurea mac-
Table 7: Mammal Species Likely to Occur on Leopold WMD
Virginia Opossum Long-tailed Weasel Woodland Vole
Northern Short-tailed Shrew Mink White-footed Mouse
Masked Shrew Badger Deer Mouse
Pigmy Shrew Stripped Skunk Muskrat
Eastern Mole Least Chipmunk S. Bog Lemming
Star-nosed Mole Eastern Chipmunk House Mouse
Big Brown Bat Woodchuck Brown Rat
Little Brown Bat Franklin’s Ground Squirrel White-tailed Deer
Keen’s Myotis Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel Eastern Cottontail
Red Bat Eastern Gray Squirrel Hoary Bat
Eastern Fox Squirrel Silver-haired Bat Red Squirrel
Coyote Southern Flying Squirrel Red Fox
American Beaver Gray Fox Southern Red-backed Vole
Raccoon Prairie Vole Northern River Otter
Meadow Vole
Table 8: Amphibian and Reptile Species Likely to Occur on
Leopold WMD
Central Newt Common Snapping Turtle Blue-spotted Salamander
Common Musk Turtle Spotted Salamander Blanding’s Turtle
Tiger Salamander Western Painted Turtle Mudpuppy
Midland Painted Turtle Eastern American Toad Eastern Spiny Softshell Turtle
Chorus Frog Eastern Hognose Snake Spring Peeper
Smooth Green Snake Cope’s Gray Treefrog Western Fox Snake
Gray Treefrog Eastern Milk Snake Bull Frog
Common Garter Snake Green Frog DeKay’s Brown Snake
Northern Leopard Frog Northern Red-bellied Snake Wood Frog
Northern Water Snake
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
34
ulosa), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria),
black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and box elder
(Acer negundo). The principal invasive and exotic
plant species within the District are non-native
buckthorns, honeysuckles, black locust, multiflora
rose, garlic mustard, spotted knapweed, Canada
thistle, crown vetch, teasels, leafy spurge, birds-foot
trefoil, purple loosestrife, sweet clovers, wild pars-nip,
Japanese knotweed, reed canary grass, phrag-mities,
and hybrid cattail. Exotic and invasive plant
species pose one of the greatest threats to the main-tenance
and restoration of the diverse habitats
found on WPAs. They threaten biological diversity
by causing population declines of native species and
by altering key ecosystem processes like hydrology,
nitrogen fixation, and fire regimes. Left unchecked,
these plants have come to dominate areas on some
WPAs and reduced the value of the land as wildlife
habitat. There is a bountiful seed source of many of
these exotic/invasive species on the lands surround-ing
the WPAs, thus in order to be effective in our
management plans, we must bring together a com-plex
set of interests including private landowner,
commercial, and public agencies.
Drainage and Pesticides
Waterfowl Production Areas are often islands in a
sea of intensive agriculture. Natural drainage pat-terns
have been altered throughout the landscape,
increasing the frequency, intensity, and duration of
water flowing into many units. Siltation, nutrient
loading, and contamination from point and non-point
sources of pollution are a serious problem on many
WPAs. Waterfowl Production Areas are also threat-ened
by farming, trespass, dumping, wildfires, and
pesticide applications on adjacent agricultural land.
A study in Ontario examined the effects of habitat
and agricultural practices on birds breeding on
farmland and determined that the most important
variable decreasing total bird species abundance
was pesticide use (Freemark and Csizy 1993).
Recent changes in agriculture have accelerated
the impact of pesticides on surrounding land. Genet-ically
altered Round-up ready corn and soybeans
have expanded the window of opportunity for pesti-cide
applications and promises to kill everything
green on fields except the genetically altered crops.
Another altered crop, Bt. Corn, contains a geneti-cally
engineered insecticide.
Research has shown that insecticides commonly
used for sunflowers, soybeans and corn can kill wild-life
directly and indirectly (e.g. by decreasing the
amount of food available to ducks). For example,
ducks feed on grain much of the year but in the
spring they shift to aquatic invertebrates (insect lar-vae,
amphipods, snails, etc.) and depend on this food
source for reproduction and survival. Even when
pesticide applications are done carefully and wet-lands
are avoided, the chemicals can drift into wet-lands
in measurable amounts and kill aquatic
invertebrates (Tome et al. 1991 and Grue et al.
1986).
Insecticides have a direct effect by killing aquatic
invertebrates, but herbicides may have an indirect
effect on food available to waterfowl. The Service
conducted a study of the impact of agricultural
chemicals on selected wetlands in four Wetland
Management Districts (Ensor and Smith, 1994).
Herbicides from surrounding agricultural land
enter wetlands and disrupt the functional interac-tion
between vegetation structure and aquatic
invertebrate life. The changing dynamic reduces
food available to breeding waterfowl.
Seasonal and semi-permanent wetlands (the
majority of WPA wetlands) are the most exposed to
agricultural chemicals. These wetlands are small
and interspersed with croplands, which increases
the probability of pesticides from over-spray and
aerial drift. Most herbicides and insecticides are
applied to crops in the spring and early summer,
coincident with maximum runoff and waterfowl
breeding. Ensor and Smith (1994) write:
Purple loosestrife. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
35
“A result of our survey... indicates that prairie
pothole wetlands may involve interactions of
multiple herbicides (and potentially insecti-cides)
comprising chemical “soups” unique to
individual wetlands.”
This study showed that “typical agricultural use”
of pesticides on surrounding land had a significant
impact in reducing the biological quality of WPA
wetlands.
Rural Development
Rural development may threaten District lands
in counties with growing populations. Lands adjoin-ing
WPAs are often seen as highly desirable rural
building lots that are purchased as small hobby
farms or rural home sites. This can result in the
WPA being “ringed” by homes, with a series of neg-ative
impacts on the WPA. In addition to the frag-mentation
of habitat, such development may limit
the use of prescribed fire; increase trespass on Dis-trict
lands by neighbors using ATVs, horses, or
vehicles; increase harassment of wildlife from cats
and dogs; increase use of District land by neighbors
for illegal uses such as dumping, gardening, and
equipment storage; and can place hunters and
neighbors at odds over concerns about safety during
the hunting seasons. Large-scale rural development
may also bring threats from noise and storm water
runoff.
Administrative Facilities
The Service is responsible for maintaining the
District headquarters building and maintenance
buildings. The headquarters is located on the Bara-boo
River WPA about 2 miles west of Portage. The
headquarters building consists primarily of office
space for the District, Fire, and Private Lands Pro-grams.
In addition to District staff, the Headquar-ters
also houses a Zone Fire Management Officer
and a Wildland Urban Interface Coordinator who
are supervised from the Regional Office and have
multi-state responsibilities for fire management.
The building is a modified residential house which
has 2,100 square feet and was built in the mid-1900s.
There is also a 3,000-square-foot heated storage
building, 3,000-square-foot storage shed, and a 900-
square-foot seed storage and processing building.
The District also maintains storage facilities at
the Uihlein and Schwengel WPAs.
Cultural Resources and
Historic Preservation
Cultural resources are important parts of the
Nation’s heritage. The Service is committed to pro-tecting
valuable evidence of human interactions with
each other and the landscape. Protection is accom-plished
in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to
protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources. Respond-ing
to the requirement in the National Wildlife Ref-uge
System Improvement Act of 1997 that
comprehensive conservation plans include “the
archaeological and cultural values of the planning
unit,” the Service contracted for an archeological
and historic resources study of the Leopold and St.
Croix Wetland Management Districts. The St. Croix
WMD is located in northwestern Wisconsin, and the
report combines the information for both Districts.
The study report was submitted in 2003.
Egan-Bruhy (2003) reports:
“Wisconsin has a rich and complex history of
11,500 years of change. Through time, popula-tions
adapted to the unique and changing envi-ronmental
setting of the region. The
archeological and historical records reflect
alterations in the economy, belief systems,
social organization, cultural composition, and
lifeways of the people of what is now the state of
Wisconsin.”
“The archeological data ... provides information
regarding the probability of identifying prehis-toric
sites in association with specific environ-mental
attributes. An association between site
location and types of water bodies, soils, and
elevations was established for several of the
prehistoric time periods. The analysis also indi-cates
that there is a relatively high probability
of encountering historic archaeological sites ...
particularly proximate to transportation routes
and along section lines....”.
The Leopold and Saint Croix WMDs cover 30
counties in Wisconsin. Consequently they are likely
to contain archeological sites from all of the cultural
periods found in Wisconsin: PaleoIndian, Archaic,
Woodland, Mississippian, Oneota, and Western
(French, British, and United States) cultures. (See
Chapter 3 of the Egan-Bruhy report for a more
complete discussion of cultural resources on the Dis-tricts.)
In addition, Indian tribes may identify
Chapter 3: The District Environment and Management
Leopold Wetland Management District / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
36
sacred sites and traditional cultural properties on
WPAs, and the Districts may acquire buildings and
other structures of historical importance. However,
as of 2006, the Service has no record of extant
sacred sites, traditional cultural properties, and his-toric
buildings and structures on any WPA.
Just 118 acres of District land have been sub-jected
to an archeological survey. From those sur-veys
and other sources, 89 cultural resources sites
are reported on the Districts. The potential, there-fore,
is high for finding many more cultural
resources sites.
A review of the National and/or State Registers
of Historic Places by Egan-Bruhy (2003) showed the
17 counties of the Dist